In (Trial) Courts (Especially) We Trust

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone describe the increasing importance of courts and lawyers in safeguarding and reinforcing the role of factual truths in our democracy. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone point out that lawyers and judges are steeped in factual investigation and factual determination, and they call upon legal educators (like themselves) to continue instilling in students the commitment to analytical reasoning based in factual evidence, and to absolutely reject the notion that factual truth is just in the mind of the beholder.

Read More

The Rhetoric About a “Decline” in Religious Liberty Is Good News for Americans

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, explains why the rhetoric about a “decline” in religious liberty actually signals a decline in religious triumphalism, and is a good thing. Professor Hamilton describes how religious actors wield the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not as a shield, but as a sword to destroy the lives of fellow Americans.

Read More

State ex rel. Vacation Management Solutions, LLC v. Honorable Joan L. Moriarty

Docket: SC98323

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law

The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of mandamus sought by Vacation Management Solutions, LLC (VMS) to prevent the circuit court from moving forward with Kyle Klosterman's case in the City of St. Louis, holding that the action must be transferred pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 51.045(c). Klosterman filed an action against VMS in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. VMS filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer venue, arguing that the City of St. Louis was an improper venue and that venue was proper in either Warren County or in St. Charles County. The circuit court overruled the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, VMS filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because Klosterman did not reply within thirty days to VMS's motion to transfer alleging improper venue, the circuit court was required to transfer the case to Warren County or St. Charles County.

Hicklin v. Schmitt

Docket: SC97692

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: Laura Denvir Stith

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court against Jessica Hicklin in a declaratory judgment action against Eric Schmitt, Missouri's attorney general and other State parties, holding that Hicklin's claims were without merit. Hicklin asserted in her complaint that her 1997 life-without-parole sentence for first-degree murder was invalid following the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) challenges to the constitutional validity of Missouri statutes are properly brought in a declaratory judgment action; (2) Missouri's General Assembly can accept the Supreme Court's invitation to remedy Miller-affected sentences by supplying parole eligibility; and (3) the Parole Board's authority does not violate the separation of powers.

SEBA, LLC v. Director of Revenue

Docket: SC98601

Opinion Date: November 24, 2020

Judge: George W. Draper, III

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) determining that SEBA, LLC was liable for unpaid state sales tax, statutory interest, and a five percent addition to tax owed as assessed by the director of revenue, holding that the AHC's decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence on the record. The AHC determined that SEBA was liable for unpaid sales tax in the amount of $38,540, minus the sales tax assessed on $26,567 in income generated from SEBA's exempt sales to three organizations the auditor initially included. The AHC found SEBA liable for five percent statutory interest because it was was negligent in reporting its taxable sales. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial and competent evidence supported the AHC's decision.